When I was a civilian cook for the army there was a military cook who was exceptionally lazy. It was something he was entitled to. He took a long time to get promoted. Laziness led to a lack of meaningful experience, that led to a lack of expertise that in turn led to a lack of confidence that in turn led to more laziness and so an on going cycle starts.
Some people just lack ambition. They put in just enough effort to get by and that's it. Did he do his fair share of the work, or were you constantly having to pick up his slack?
the reason is so you can eat, but what you really need is a consideration ethic, so when you live, you won't be living in hell. i don't mean the mythological meta-fate of the inconsiderate, i mean tyranny in the here and now, which is what the dominance of aggressiveness is, and the opposite of any meaningful definition of civilization. also, if we're supposed to be so much smarter then other creatures, why haven't we automated the fundimentals of existence so they won't have to depend upon our sweat? there's no good reason not to, other then the perspective of some people that imagine it to be a favor to the world to require sweat of others, which themself lack the responsible ambition of mind to analyze honestly and see that all this concern with what others think of each other, is bringing about the very self destruction of our species.
This guy was ambitious. Not a good combination with being lazy and not liking people in general. He shoved a lot of work on to me. He was the only military cook who got any complaints working with me and was the only military cook who micro-managed me. He would talk to me in the most condescending manner. There were military cooks with half his years of experience who would have had greater cooking knowledge than he had.
well that's the thing of lacking a consideration ethic. (and the problem; tyranny, of any culture that lacks one) and while i do not believe in an "ethic" of work for work's sake, i do believe in the avoidance of becoming too dependent on any one or small group, of individual persons. that's what governments are for.
According to your definition of hell, those of us living in the UK are actually living in a state in hell !!!
The Peter Principle applies, and you must be promoted to your level of gross incompetence, in order to meet your potential, and assume your proper place in society. Notably, nice guys finish first, and get promoted first, but bullies tend to remain in positions of authority, so it helps to know whether you are a winner or a loser. Just ask Donald Duck.
So he was your supervisor? Sounds like he achieved his dream job where he got to tell other people what to do while putting in minimal effort himself. He'll put in his 20 years of military service, retire with a pension, supplement it with a job requiring almost no labor, then eventually retire altogether, getting his pension plus social security. The lazy shit has got it figured out.
“Major Major had been born too late and too mediocre. Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he inevitably stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.” -Catch 22
Our capitalist society is such that you decide fairly early how you want to approach the making of money to enable yourself to have some of the necessities of life----IE: shelter, sustenance, and perhaps the observed shiny objects of which we are so enamored, then go about acquiring the knowledge and / or experience needed to gain such. The work ethic involves a "pulling your weight, " standard ( that is basically unwritten, but surely understood) while performing your duties at / in your chosen area of work, which as I have seen over a long working life , to have different meanings to different people. In the main, most folks will do their jobs with the consideration of the fact that if everyone does 'the job' with equal effort, the PYW standard will be met. However, as Bilby mentioned , there are those that will do just enough to 'get by' and therefore put stress on the others that adhere to PYW. ( and even be a prick about it )And there are others that completely fuck off and foster MUCH stress and resentment to areas of work. Some folks are just naturally born with the PYW ethic and others are seemingly born without it. I've seen ém all. I've had a bunch of different jobs before I chose the one that would provide me with great exercise, different locations almost by the week , interesting problems to solve, being outdoors all the time and my favorite--paid by piecework! With piecework I could bust my ass and make damn good money and not have to think about what others were doing. And I will say this---I can tell within a half hour whether a guy is a worker or not when he gets on a roof with me. I should say --got-- my working days are over.
This guy was an arrogant pig and a big kid. He was a nit-picker. He smeared my name and a few others at every opportunity. it would seem his parents forgot to tell him that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. He got more complaints than any other military cook. I am not sure why he even became a cook, given that he did not have a passion for food and having to do shift work. Once I was having a discussion with the Caterer in the office and he asked me how I was getting on with this military cook. I replied who cares if he if he wants to do as little work as possible, that is stupid lookout for reasons I stated in the opening post. A work ethic includes working efficiently.
Sounds like someone who would constantly get fired in the civilian world for acting like a jerk. The military is more likely to forgive you for that as long as you get results. "Find a niche and fill it" they say, and that's what he did.
I don't know about the military cook you are talking about. But being lazy doesn't mean a person is not ethical. I had seen people who are lazy but smart to 1. always find ways to get job done with less effort 2. often automate tasks 3. eliminate steps that are no longer necessary and such Lazy also doesn't mean lack of ambition or talent or ethics. Lazy is just lazy.
I have a code at work, a code at home, a code in the neighborhood... I think I can call it ethics. But I prefer to term code I mostly create this out of my personal life experience, advice from seniors/mentors that I respect, or plain simple observations Example: I had naive sexism during school/university days. During the very first week in my first job, a colleague few years senior told me that at work there is no men or women, there are only colleagues. That went into my code! It just clicked. 23 years later, still going solid on that one.
Cooking courses only teach you so much. Some recipes are more labour intensive than others. being lazy does not mean no ethics, but it means less accumulated wisdom. Even though I have not cooked professionally for 18 years , I still try out new recipies now and then.
If you live by yourself and you are lazy at home that is not unethical. But if you are lazy in the workplace then someone else has to pick up the slack and that is a form of selfishness.
well its to keep each other from starving to death, but beyond that its real easy to over do it, and for the most part i think humanity has. a consideration ethic would do far more for the quality of life experience of the kind of world we have to live in.
